LIP: Catholic school girls, no-cursing pledge?

[315]

gothamist.com/2013/02/02/catholic_school_girls_forced_to_tak.php

[Deleted]

Urging all children not to curse sounds ideal.

[thejackpot]

They should all take the pledge if the words are undesirable than no one should get a pass to use them.

[IIOY]

Fuck those fucking sexist assholes.

[earlgreyhot]

That's some fucking bullshit.

[2vermont]

So this is one Catholic school, not the whole Catholic Church, right?

Yeah, I thought so.

So, just like I had issues with the Catholic hospital in a lawsuit claiming fetuses aren't persons, I have issues with this. Yes, both sexes should take the vow.

[simplyinpenguin]

I'm pissed about the "we want ladies to act like ladies." Um, ok. Great? But what about the boys? Or is cursing just hard-wired into their systems?

If I had been a student there, I would've refused to take the pledge until I saw the boys up there. I'll act like a lady when they start acting like gentlemen.

Oh and I'm sure they're there to, you know, LEARN and GRADUATE. Why do they have to start focusing on "influencing the boys to curb their swearing"? The school officials already put it in their own hands with that stupid pledge. Why couldn't they commit 100%? What would happen to these girls that took the pledge if they started swearing?

It's like the virginity pledge. It's worthless.

[315]

Not only do I think it's sexist, I think it's waste of fuckingtime.

[2vermont]

Feb 2, 2013 17:28:28 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Feb 2, 2013 17:26:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Fuck those fucking sexist assholes.

Well, you should wait until you hear the other side of the story! <)

So happy to see I'm the butt of jokes now.  You're all peaches.

[laurenpetro]

i have to be honest, expecting girls from the LBC not to swear is completely laughable. especially QoP.

as for the pledge, pppppffft. i would have been in detention every other minute if i did swear in class in school.

i'm getting very sick of people demonizing harmless shit in general.

[2vermont]

Feb 2, 2013 20:29:00 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

oh please. You were mocking eclaires in thread #2.  You can do it, but you're off limits? 

Also, you are lying.  There was ONE joke.  Only one.  Not plural.  I resent these exaggerations and mistruths designed to malign me.

I don't even know what "Thread #2" is.  I'm pretty sure I didn't "mock" eclaires; however, if you're talking about the thread where I told the other side quite accurately, I did quote her nasty description of me. 

And you're the  liar...you've been mocking me and making me the butt of jokes since the Christian thread (and I wasn't even taking issue with you).  I thought we were being quite civil with each other but I should have known that you couldn't keep that up.

So yeah, plural...jokes.  And I'm further "liking" how other posters can "like" posts that make fun of others.  Sweet.

I guess I'm just too sensitive for the cool kids....

ETA:  Oh and to be clear my origianl post wasn't just meant for you.  It was a general comment about noticing that I'm now the butt of jokes.  But you keep on with your bad self further mocking me like you did in this post proving it was a single joke. 

[IIOY]

Feb 3, 2013 8:01:46 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Feb 2, 2013 20:29:00 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

oh please. You were mocking eclaires in thread #2.  You can do it, but you're off limits? 

Also, you are lying.  There was ONE joke.  Only one.  Not plural.  I resent these exaggerations and mistruths designed to malign me.

And I'm further "liking" how other posters can "like" posts that make fun of others.  Sweet.

I guess I'm just too sensitive for the cool kids....

Are you referring to voodoo's comment above about waiting to hear the other side of the story?  Because you "liked" that comment as well.

And FWIW, if you are in fact referring to voodoo's comment above, then I have to agree that you are being a bit too sensitive.  I had no clue she was mocking you with that comment and thought she was making a general comment on how even the most blatantly stupid policies and practices, such as the one described in the OP, have defenders. I agree with her on this.

If you are referring to another post elsewhere, then never mind, LOL.

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 8:15:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Feb 3, 2013 8:01:46 GMT -5 2vermont said:

And I'm further "liking" how other posters can "like" posts that make fun of others.  Sweet.

I guess I'm just too sensitive for the cool kids....

Are you referring to voodoo's comment above about waiting to hear the other side of the story?  Because you "liked" that comment as well.

And FWIW, if you are in fact referring to voodoo's comment above, then I have to agree that you are being a bit too sensitive.  I had no clue she was mocking you with that comment and thought she was making a general comment on how even the most blatantly stupid policies and practices, such as the one described in the OP, have defenders. I agree with her on this.

If you are referring to another post elsewhere, then never mind, LOL.

It was a mistake.  I am glad to hear that you didn't know she was referring to me, but that was in fact what she was doing.  You know that now.  Do you still like her comment?

[IIOY]

Feb 3, 2013 8:35:54 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Feb 3, 2013 8:15:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Are you referring to voodoo's comment above about waiting to hear the other side of the story?  Because you "liked" that comment as well.

And FWIW, if you are in fact referring to voodoo's comment above, then I have to agree that you are being a bit too sensitive.  I had no clue she was mocking you with that comment and thought she was making a general comment on how even the most blatantly stupid policies and practices, such as the one described in the OP, have defenders. I agree with her on this.

If you are referring to another post elsewhere, then never mind, LOL.

It was a mistake.  I am glad to hear that you didn't know she was referring to me, but that was in fact what she was doing.  You know that now.  Do you still like her comment?

Do I like what I thought was her intent with the comment?  Yes.  Had I know it was a direct dig, however, I would not have liked it because generally that's not my style.  This is the problem with "likes" that I raised when this option was first enable - people can "like" a post for a variety of reasons - the person who posted, the style of the post, one's personal interpretation of the post, a funny gif that is attached, the fact that the person "liking" the post just had a Red Bull, is high as a kite, and is feeling generous with the likes, etc..  I really don't think people should be reading much into "likes."

And if I'm being brutally honest here, I strongly dislike the passive-aggressive way in which you called me out here. If you have an issue, address me directly rather than making a general reference to "others."

And with that, I'm done because I've wasted too much time on internet navel-gazing.

[eclaires]

Nasty?!! I resent that! There is more to the story.

Also, did anyone imply this is a Catholic wide thing? I don't see it here so your first comment is kind of weirdly hostile and defensive. I wouldn't want to slack on my self assigned job.

As an aside, I'm with IIOY on likes. People like things for a variety of reasons.

[eclaires]

You can drag me in whenever you like because I laughed.

And I always enjoy a good laugh! I'm not a delicate flower whose e-feewings get hurt.*

*this is not a passive aggressive insult at anyone to be 100% clear. I say this about myself frequently and has nothing to do with anyone else. I feel like I need to add this disclaimer.

[315]

Whoa. What did I walk into here? I have no idea what's going on. I didn't make fun of anyone. I have no idea what "thread #2" is or what was said previously.

[curtains]

Whenever 315 "likes" something it takes me second to realize it is not that the person has three hundred and fifteen likes.

That is all

[315]

Feb 3, 2013 10:42:58 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Feb 3, 2013 10:26:49 GMT -5 315 said:

Whoa. What did I walk into here? I have no idea what's going on. I didn't make fun of anyone. I have no idea what "thread #2" is or what was said previously.

nah, you're innocent of all wrongdoing here. 

:narrows eyes suspiciously: 

or ARE you?

(angel)

In this case, I think I'm an innocent. In general, you should always consider me a suspect. (devil)

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 9:23:36 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

This is where you mocked eclaires.in the contraception post: Both bolded patently FALSE. But I'm sure that's just my usual Catholic apologist bullshit talking.

I'm not sure if it makes you a liar for denying you mocked her, or me a liar because I am doubtless twisting your (exact) words.

As to the rest? I have 0 interest in over-investing by rehashing and / or derailing this thread further.

I did not make fun of her.  Not my MO.  Sarcastic in reaction to her derogatory comment about me? Yes. Mocking?  No.  I apologize for being sarcastic.  I fully admit that it is difficult to remain above board when you feel as if others are attacking you.  

And I guess it's fitting that you should stop derailing the thread since you were the one who first derailed it with a dig at me. 

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 9:05:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Feb 3, 2013 8:35:54 GMT -5 2vermont said:

It was a mistake.  I am glad to hear that you didn't know she was referring to me, but that was in fact what she was doing.  You know that now.  Do you still like her comment?

Do I like what I thought was her intent with the comment?  Yes.  Had I know it was a direct dig, however, I would not have liked it because generally that's not my style.  This is the problem with "likes" that I raised when this option was first enable - people can "like" a post for a variety of reasons - the person who posted, the style of the post, one's personal interpretation of the post, a funny gif that is attached, the fact that the person "liking" the post just had a Red Bull, is high as a kite, and is feeling generous with the likes, etc..  I really don't think people should be reading much into "likes."

And if I'm being brutally honest here, I strongly dislike the passive-aggressive way in which you called me out here. If you have an issue, address me directly rather than making a general reference to "others."

And with that, I'm done because I've wasted too much time on internet navel-gazing.

Ok, so here's the direct call out which I have no problem doing:  you now know that it was a dig at me, why not unlike?

[Deleted]

2V I agree with eclaires that your first response was incredibly defensive and kind of eyeroll worthy to be honest, with the whole "yeah, I thought so." I am not sure anyone thought this was a Catholic wide thing. I certainly didn't.

And yuck to the idea of making girls take this pledge. But I am still bitter over getting a detention in 7th grade (from the nun who was the principal...eck she was awful) because I called some guy hot. The teacher who recommended it regularly had spitballs thrown at her and people told her she was dumb and they werent going to do what she wanted, but I whispered that some guy was hot and I got in trouble bc my behavior wasn't "ladylike."

#stillbitter

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 10:26:49 GMT -5 315 said:

Whoa. What did I walk into here? I have no idea what's going on. I didn't make fun of anyone. I have no idea what "thread #2" is or what was said previously.

FTR, I had no issue with the OP.  I have no problem with threads about anything Catholic.  However, I will look to see if there is more to the story because often there is. 

Here it was just one Catholic school's policy and I happen to agree that it was wrong.  Also, after further thought I agree with you that the pledge is also a waste of time.

[cattledogkisses]

Ew. The double standard of the "girls must act like ladies but boys will be boys" line of thinking is so gross. I bet whoever came up with this also thinks that girls who sleep around are sluts but boys who sleep around are just obeying their natural urges or whatever.

[heyjude]

Well what is going on in here?!

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 11:28:58 GMT -5 @mrsbecky07 said:

2V I agree with eclaires that your first response was incredibly defensive and kind of eyeroll worthy to be honest, with the whole "yeah, I thought so." I am not sure anyone thought this was a Catholic wide thing. I certainly didn't. 

And yet voodoo admits it was a dig at me.  But I was incredibly defensive.  Got it.

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2013 11:33:05 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Feb 3, 2013 11:28:58 GMT -5 @mrsbecky07 said:

2V I agree with eclaires that your first response was incredibly defensive and kind of eyeroll worthy to be honest, with the whole "yeah, I thought so." I am not sure anyone thought this was a Catholic wide thing. I certainly didn't. 

And yet voodoo admits it was a dig at me.  But I was incredibly defensive.  Got it.

But your response didn't seem to have any connection to what she said. Had the OP been titled "Catholic Church bans cursing for all women" then I would get your response. But that wasn't the OP.

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 11:35:40 GMT -5 @mrsbecky07 said:

Feb 3, 2013 11:33:05 GMT -5 2vermont said:

And yet voodoo admits it was a dig at me.  But I was incredibly defensive.  Got it.

But your response didn't seem to have any connection to what she said. Had the OP been titled "Catholic Church bans cursing for all women" then I would get your response. But that wasn't the OP.

It actually was, but I can see how it would look that way.  It had nothing to do with the OP, really.  I then came back and made a direct response. 

[IIOY]

Feb 3, 2013 11:27:57 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Feb 3, 2013 9:05:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Do I like what I thought was her intent with the comment?  Yes.  Had I know it was a direct dig, however, I would not have liked it because generally that's not my style.  This is the problem with "likes" that I raised when this option was first enable - people can "like" a post for a variety of reasons - the person who posted, the style of the post, one's personal interpretation of the post, a funny gif that is attached, the fact that the person "liking" the post just had a Red Bull, is high as a kite, and is feeling generous with the likes, etc..  I really don't think people should be reading much into "likes."

And if I'm being brutally honest here, I strongly dislike the passive-aggressive way in which you called me out here. If you have an issue, address me directly rather than making a general reference to "others."

And with that, I'm done because I've wasted too much time on internet navel-gazing.

Ok, so here's the direct call out which I have no problem doing:  you now know that it was a dig at me, why not unlike?

Because I don't put that much thought into a fucking message board!  You need to stop analyzing the shit out of all of this.

[2vermont]

Feb 3, 2013 11:39:48 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Feb 3, 2013 11:27:57 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Ok, so here's the direct call out which I have no problem doing:  you now know that it was a dig at me, why not unlike?

Because I don't put that much thought into a fucking message board!  You need to stop analyzing the shit out of all of this.

Got it.